Google offers searchable map of all white space spectrum in the US

Empty TV channels are easier to find than ever.

If and when White Spaces networks become a major success story, it will be a very well-organized one. Internet-capable devices will get online by accessing the empty airwaves in unused TV channels, and they'll avoid interference with actual broadcasts by connecting to databases that keep track of all available spectrum.

Google today began a public test of a White Spaces database to help make this a reality. Google isn't the first to operate one of these databases, but it's done so with a very Google-like approach. In addition to letting white space devices identify available spectrum, Google unveiled a browser-based tool that lets anybody find out what spectrum is available nearby.

It's not necessarily useful if you don't live in one of the few areas where white spaces networks have been built out, but it offers an interesting look at how TV broadcast spectrum is used across the country, and it's a bit simpler and more user-friendly than your typical spectrum maps.

"Anyone can use the spectrum browser to see TV white spaces spectrum that is available in their specific location," Google writes. "Once the database is certified and gone through additional steps with the FCC, the database will allow registered devices to check the database automatically, identifying what spectrum is available locally and using those available bands. Our database also provides some basic information on spectrum and spectrum sharing to help people learn more about this approach."

Google's database will face a 45-day trial with the Federal Communications Commission to make sure it's up to snuff. If it passes the test, Google will join Spectrum Bridge and Telcordia in operating active white spaces databases.

Google's spectrum browser allows users to search for addresses or latitude and longitude to find what channels are available for white spaces usage. For example, one of my searches for Boston, MA turned up eight available channels covering 48MHz of spectrum.

For each channel, the database will show you whether it allows access from fixed devices (such as commercial Wi-Fi Hot-Spots, rural broadband distribution, or cellular-style installations) or portable devices (like laptops, Wi-Fi access points, tablets, and smartphones).

The channel list in Boston looks like this (click the picture to make it larger):

19 Reader Comments

TVWS has a huge potential to help broadband in rural areas. As a rural WISP, I am absolutely drooling over this spectrum!

Unfortunately, the NAB pushed through some very restrictive rules in the FCC order authorizing use of TVWS. These rules are on the allowable emissions mask. Unfortunately, it's very tight. This has resulted in fixed wireless devices being *very* expensive.

I'm under NDA on the pricing that I've been given, so I can't disclose that information - but suffice to say that it's quite a bit more than what WISPs are used to dealing with.

For TVWS to be truly successful to use in a widespread fixed-wireless scenario for deployment of broadband services to rural households, the FCC must relax this emissions mask.

I feel that, because of this restriction and the expense of development, we will not see TVWS devices used in the same way that 2.4Ghz wifi has been used (hotspots, in home routers, that sort of thing). It will most likely only be used by Carriers and by WISPs.

What's up with Utah? It has some of the darkest blobs (fewest available channels for WS, right?) outside of NYC, SanFran and SoCal. SLC is darker than Chicago or Houston.

Just a guess, (and I'm not saying this to be offensive to any individual or group) but probably the local religious population present in Utah might happen to utilize of public access broadcasting for their purposes.

I like the inconspicuous black box in the corner of otherwise empty New Mexico.

No internet here folks, just keep moving along.

Searching based on my own zip code, I noticed that immediately. We certainly have our share of scientific and military sites here, but that black square doesn't appear to be one of them, unless someone misplaced an AFB. Odd. ACK! I forgot the VLA field. Maybe that's it, though I think that's further south, by far, than the square on my map...

Cool stuff, though. If I were independently wealthy, l'd be on this like, umm, black squares on a map of NM.

I wish the map looked more promising. VHF-lo (2-6) is ideal for WISPs, and broadcasters have been fleeing from those channels with the switch to digital. Sadly, it seems most areas are still not allowed to use them for internet service because there's some moron with a low-power VHF station on it, within 300 miles of a populated area, with a viewership the size of their immediate family...

I wish the map looked more promising. VHF-lo (2-6) is ideal for WISPs, and broadcasters have been fleeing from those channels with the switch to digital. Sadly, it seems most areas are still not allowed to use them for internet service because there's some moron with a low-power VHF station on it, within 300 miles of a populated area, with a viewership the size of their immediate family...

Unless someone passes a law to cease OTA broadcasting, I doubt anyone will ever leave those channels. Everywhere that I've ever lived that range usually included ABC, CBS, and NBC.

I wish the map looked more promising. VHF-lo (2-6) is ideal for WISPs, and broadcasters have been fleeing from those channels with the switch to digital. Sadly, it seems most areas are still not allowed to use them for internet service because there's some moron with a low-power VHF station on it, within 300 miles of a populated area, with a viewership the size of their immediate family...

It depends where you live. When HDTV came online, they were all UHF locally, but then some went back to VHF.

They need to simply put all HDTV on UHF, and narrow the band. Even give the old owners multiple UHF licenses if they need the same coverage. Given cable, satellite and streaming, there will never be enough broadcasters to use all the TV spectrum. Whitespace is a good idea, but it seems like a kludge. And to my knowledge, the whitte space spectrum will not be protected. I don't see that working out well for the WISPs.

What's up with Utah? It has some of the darkest blobs (fewest available channels for WS, right?) outside of NYC, SanFran and SoCal. SLC is darker than Chicago or Houston.

Just a guess, (and I'm not saying this to be offensive to any individual or group) but probably the local religious population present in Utah might happen to utilize of public access broadcasting for their purposes.

Most of the population in Utah is surrounded by mountains: the entire Salt Lake Valley sits in a big rocky bowl, with long ranges of granite and snow stretching out on either side for miles.

As I understand it, there are a series of signal repeaters to get TV/radio waves around and over many of the peaks and to the rest of the people on the other side. (I had an apartment on the low side of a hill, which itself was at a slightly lower altitude than other parts of town, so I didn't see CBS for years and missed the entire Survivor craze.)

I'm not completely familiar with white spaces or these repeaters (and I don't live there any more), but I imagine the lack of free channels might have something to do with this.

TVWS has a huge potential to help broadband in rural areas. As a rural WISP, I am absolutely drooling over this spectrum!

Unfortunately, the NAB pushed through some very restrictive rules in the FCC order authorizing use of TVWS. These rules are on the allowable emissions mask. Unfortunately, it's very tight. This has resulted in fixed wireless devices being *very* expensive.

I'm under NDA on the pricing that I've been given, so I can't disclose that information - but suffice to say that it's quite a bit more than what WISPs are used to dealing with.

For TVWS to be truly successful to use in a widespread fixed-wireless scenario for deployment of broadband services to rural households, the FCC must relax this emissions mask.

I feel that, because of this restriction and the expense of development, we will not see TVWS devices used in the same way that 2.4Ghz wifi has been used (hotspots, in home routers, that sort of thing). It will most likely only be used by Carriers and by WISPs.

TVWS has a huge potential to help broadband in rural areas. As a rural WISP, I am absolutely drooling over this spectrum!

Unfortunately, the NAB pushed through some very restrictive rules in the FCC order authorizing use of TVWS. These rules are on the allowable emissions mask. Unfortunately, it's very tight. This has resulted in fixed wireless devices being *very* expensive.

I'm under NDA on the pricing that I've been given, so I can't disclose that information - but suffice to say that it's quite a bit more than what WISPs are used to dealing with.

For TVWS to be truly successful to use in a widespread fixed-wireless scenario for deployment of broadband services to rural households, the FCC must relax this emissions mask.

I feel that, because of this restriction and the expense of development, we will not see TVWS devices used in the same way that 2.4Ghz wifi has been used (hotspots, in home routers, that sort of thing). It will most likely only be used by Carriers and by WISPs.

Acronyms!

We're still waiting for Google to release the searchable map of acronym space, but hopefully once it is ready it will prevent acronym collisions. The current method of using Wikipedia disambiguation pages is only moderately effective.